Impleader of parties under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code should not be allowed if it would enlarge the scope of the suit and adversely affect the rights of the petitioner.

1. - This revision is directed against the order dated 30th July, 1987 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Alwar in civil suit No. 45/380/85 filed by the petitioner against Non-Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 & 3. By the said order the Munsif has allowed the application filed by the Non-Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as parties in the suit.

2. In the suit the petitioner has sought an injunction against Non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 restraining them from demolishing the 'Chabutra' of the petitioner or to interfere in the use and occupation and possession of the said Chabutra. The case of the petitioner is that on 30th October, 1985 he had moved an application before the Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar for permission to construct four walls of the disputed Chabutra where upon the Asstt. Town Planner, Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar vide his letter dated 11th December, 1985 granted permission for raising four walls on the disputed Chabutra with some modification. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was decided by the Additional Collector, Alwar on 25th February, 1986. By the said order the modification which was directed by the Assistant Town Planner in his order was set aside. In the application that was filed by the Non-Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as parties, they have stated that the 'Gali' over which the Chabutra is situated is joint property of the petitioner and Non-Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 and by the construction of Chabutra the right of passage of the non-petitioners has been affected. It has also been submitted by the Non-Petitioners Nos. 4 & 5 in the application that the said Non-Petitioners have submitted a complaint dated 21st November, 1985 before non-petitioner No. 2 and on that complaint after inspecting the site, the order for demolition of the construction was passed by the non petitioner No. 2. The Munsif vide his order dated 30th July, 1987 has allowed the application submitted by the Non-Petitioners Nos. 4 & 5 on the view that the Gali lying towards the west of the house of the applicants non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 and towards the house of the petitioner is a joint Gali and the rights of the applicants are affected by the construction made by the petitioner in the paid Gali, and therefore, it was proper to implead them as parties in the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this revision.

3. By order dated 12th February, 1988 it was directed that notices be issued to the non-petitioners to show cause as to why the revision may not be admitted and allowed. In response to the said notice, Non-Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 have appeared and opposed the revision. Non-Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have not appeared.

4. I have heard Shri J.P. Goyal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the revision and Shri G.D. Porwal, the learned Counsel for Non-Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5. Shri Goyal has urged that by permitting Non Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 to be impleaded as parties to the suit under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code by this Court the nature of the suit will be altered because the suit has been filed only raises the question as to whether constructions made by the petitioner over the Chabutra in dispute are without permission of the Urban Improvement Trust But as a result of the Non-Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 being added as parties, the other question with regard to the 'Gali' being joint, would be allowed to be raised and that would alter the nature of the suit and that would adversely affect the rights of the petitioner resulting in irreparable injury and failure of justice. Shri Porwal, the learned Counsel for the Non-Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5, on the other hand, has urged that by impleading non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 as parties to the suit, the petitioner would not suffer any irreparable injury and it would not